This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 41557 - Use tokens in transactions
Summary: Use tokens in transactions
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: java
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Unsupported (show other bugs)
Version: 4.x
Hardware: All All
: P3 blocker (vote)
Assignee: issues@java
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: 40618
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2004-03-31 21:33 UTC by Pavel Buzek
Modified: 2006-12-01 10:33 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Exception Reporter:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Pavel Buzek 2004-03-31 21:33:59 UTC
This is to avoid a code that would interfere with
transactions that do not belong to it.
Comment 1 Martin Matula 2004-03-31 21:42:51 UTC
As far as I remember, Jarda proposed this as a TCA. Nobody pushed for
making it a TCR.
Comment 2 Pavel Buzek 2004-03-31 21:57:15 UTC
ok, I thought we changed it in following discussion, but it was not my
call so I will believe you and let Yarda or Hrebejk rise the priority
if they think otherwise.
Comment 3 Jaroslav Tulach 2004-04-02 12:45:35 UTC
In the next discussion we touched issue that any listener on MDR could
automatically rollback any transaction by calling
MDRManager.rollback(). Martin pointed out that he wants to add the
veto ability to the listeners via VetoableChange anyway. If that
happens, this is just TCA, if the vetoablechange will not be added, I
consider this  an unwanted sideeffect and hole in the API that needs
to be fixed and I would turn this into TCR.
Comment 4 Martin Matula 2005-01-28 08:38:26 UTC
Will not do for now to preserve backward compatibility.
VetoChangeException was added as discussed. Changing to enhancement to
allow future tracking.
Comment 5 Jaroslav Tulach 2006-12-01 10:33:14 UTC
This issue (as several others which I am changing at once) as a TCR or TCA, 
but it is not a defect. As I am aware of our attitude towards non-defects - 
e.g. ignore them, I believe it is safe to assume that these issues are never 
going to be fixed. As such I am closing them. If anyone believes that this 
issue is important to be fixed, then please reopen. In such case I suggest to 
track it then as a defect.